United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 2024

Navarrette 311915 v. Thornell

Navarrette 311915 v. Thornell
United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Decided May 9, 2024
Navarrette 311915 v. Thornell

Trial Court Opinion

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Carlos Eduardo Navarrette, No. CV-23-00922-PHX-MTL 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles (“R & R”) (Doc. 13) that was issued on January 10, 2024. The R&R recommends that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be denied, and that a certificate of appealability be denied. (Doc. 13 at 9-10.) Petitioner has not filed any objections to the R & R. The deadline to do so passed fourteen days following service of the R & R, which was electronically noticed to Petitioner on January 10, 2024. (Doc. 13; Doc. 14.)

22 In reviewing an R & R, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

24 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that the District Court need not conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”). No || objections having been received, the Court will accept and adopt the R & R in its entirety.

2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is accepted.

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

5|| 1) is denied with prejudice.

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the issuance of a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Petitioner has not || demonstrated that reasonable jurists could find the ruling debatable or conclude that the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).

11 Dated this 9th day of May, 2024.

Wichal T. Hburde Michael T. Liburdi 15 United States District Judge _2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.